FROM THE CAC GRADING ROOM...............

[jom]

PCGS and NGC used a hybrid grading technique more closely guarded than Col. Sanders Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe.

 

It is WE, the buying public resigned to using the ANA Grading Standards because they won't let us see what's in the vault.

 

hehehehe

So it's a secret? Let me tell you what their only secret is. It's that collectors by and large are still so dense we still don't understand that market grading based on "eye appeal" as opposed to technical grading based on condition is an arbitrary system which takes meaningful collector participation out of the hobby and reduces us to but passive investors. Which, coincidently, is exactly where they want it.

 

Can you explain how having a grading system based on "eye appeal" takes collector participation out of the hobby? I mean, I buy coins I think are "eye appealing". How does that take the collector out of me and make me a passive investor?

 

In addition: why would the TPGs "coincidentally" want this to be the case?

 

I'm sorry but I find all of that just baffling...

 

jom

[Tradedollarnut]

HT,

 

Below is the MS67 77-CC from Coinfacts which has also been dipped but is still somewhat lustrous as it hasn't been dipped out by multiple trips to the jar.

 

This example however wasn't properly neutralized after it was dipped and now has dip brownish residue forming on both sides.

 

Getting back to your example...

 

It isn't so much about right or wrong plastic but understanding which coins fair better grading wise at each of the services due to surface conditions.

 

 

Now this looks like a gem or better to me

[e1cnr]

What does your idea and knowledge on how to grade and what a B or an A coin is versus a C coin have to do with if a coin will get a CAC sticker?

 

I like your 1877-CC but vote no for CAC sticker. Heavy dip and wipe on right field I don't like for a MS64.

[Hard Times]

What does your idea and knowledge on how to grade and what a B or an A coin is versus a C coin have to do with if a coin will get a CAC sticker?

 

I like your 1877-CC but vote no for CAC sticker. Heavy dip and wipe on right field I don't like for a MS64.

 

From the CAC website:

 

'For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker'

 

I have no idea and knowledge on what CAC believes is a A, B, or C coin for the grade. Only CAC knows what that means with respect to how they decide to give those designations. CAC believes it does not make their standards for a A or B coin in this grade. There is no 'wipe' in the right field, not sure where you are seeing that?

 

Best, HT

[breakdown-migration]

For the dime, you say cartwheel luster but photo doesn't show it. Based solely on the photo, I would not be a buyer at the 64 grade but in hand I might feel differently.

 

One of the best things about CAC is the chance to learn something about grading from world-class graders. And they are willing to tell you why they chose not to sticker a particular coin, if you ask. It sounds to me like you have benefited already from your ten submissions. I have submitted a number of coins to CAC over the years. Every one is an education, especially the no-stickers that surprised me.

 

Your willingness to share your results can be educational to a point but photos only give a fraction of the information necessary to arrive at an accurate grade.

[$ilverHawk]

HT,

 

Below is the MS67 77-CC from Coinfacts which has also been dipped but is still somewhat lustrous as it hasn't been dipped out by multiple trips to the jar.

 

This example however wasn't properly neutralized after it was dipped and now has dip brownish residue forming on both sides.

 

Getting back to your example...

 

It isn't so much about right or wrong plastic but understanding which coins fair better grading wise at each of the services due to surface conditions.

 

 

Now this looks like a gem or better to me

 

The Reverse is definitely superior to the OP's coin. The Obverse lacks central definition as compared to the OP's coin. OP's coin has a better Obverse. We all know that the Obverse grade carries more weight than the Reverse. Please explain your reasoning for agreeing that somehow this coin was judged as MS67. Obverse central devices are weakly struck. Per the photos, there are not any great differences in the surfaces of either coin.

 

What do you see? What am I missing?

 

Carl

[Tradedollarnut]

Strike is like 5% of a coin's grade - if that. Look at Liberty - she's covered with mint frost. The mint bloom in the fields is obvious as well. This coin is so far superior to the other that they aren't even in the same league. No offense to the OP's coin intended.

[AnkurJ]

For the dime, you say cartwheel luster but photo doesn't show it. Based solely on the photo, I would not be a buyer at the 64 grade but in hand I might feel differently.

 

One of the best things about CAC is the chance to learn something about grading from world-class graders. And they are willing to tell you why they chose not to sticker a particular coin, if you ask. It sounds to me like you have benefited already from your ten submissions. I have submitted a number of coins to CAC over the years. Every one is an education, especially the no-stickers that surprised me.

 

Your willingness to share your results can be educational to a point but photos only give a fraction of the information necessary to arrive at an accurate grade.

 

Well said!

[brg5658]

Strike is like 5% of a coin's grade - if that. Look at Liberty - she's covered with mint frost. The mint bloom in the fields is obvious as well. This coin is so far superior to the other that they aren't even in the same league. No offense to the OP's coin intended.

 

Not to distract from the OP's coin, but the one posted by Broadie from CoinFacts doesn't approach an MS67 in my mind. Looks to be quite significant abrasion on Miss Liberty's knee, and the strike is abysmal from a tired almost "dead" obverse die. About the only thing the coin has going for it is the luster. The spots to the left of Miss Liberty's head on the obverse, and the lower left quarter of the reverse and it's overall hazy brownishness are not attractive.

 

If that's what an MS67 looks like, then you can keep it.

 

I find the OP's coin to be attractive for the type, regardless of its "magic green bean" status.

[$ilverHawk]

Strike is like 5% of a coin's grade - if that. Look at Liberty - she's covered with mint frost. The mint bloom in the fields is obvious as well. This coin is so far superior to the other that they aren't even in the same league. No offense to the OP's coin intended.

 

Oh please. Where do you come up with "Strike is like 5% of a coins grade if that"? We are talking about a MS67 coin. The lack of a sharp strike is a major issue no matter what the "mint bloom" when grading a MS67 coin.

 

Please describe the "superior" aspects as compared to the OP's coin. I would like to know what I am missing. I am judging from photographs and I don't see your point.

 

Carl

[Tradedollarnut]

Nah. Sounds like you got it all down

[FishyOne]

Game, set, match goes to TDN as the first to recognize what was likely the key issue for this 64. Must be the reduced luster because:

 

'Not CAC'

 

For 64's JA and his crew must want more luster than this one gives. Like I said, it has a nice cartwheel but does not boom, either from multiple dips or just wasn't a great booming luster when minted (?). The coin shows evidence for die rust around the edges and one small die break, some clashes on both sides, so the die was not new when the dime was struck - to the experts, would this result in less mint bloom? Look at the image Broadie shows, I am capable of imaging luster like that and mine does not have it and though his example is a 67 I am thinking more luster is necessary for JA and his crew to like it in a 64. This is also a lesson of seeing the coin in hand as the images from the auction house would have never been good enough to determine the state of the luster. Nevertheless I like the coin, and it was one of 3 of the 10 that I did not expect to be beaned but would have been pleasantly pleased if it had - you never know for sure until you send it in.

 

Best, HT

 

I will put up the next one tomorrow.

 

Thanks for the thread and I look forward to tomorrow's coin. The 10 free submissions for LSCC members rocks. No complaining about submission fees.

 

My success rate at CAC has been about 70% but my average coin submitted is ~$500 in value. When you get into 4 and 5 figure coins it likely gets tougher to get a non stickered coin to bean. Some of them have already been submitted/rejected and a lot of what's readily available are C coins and overgraded pieces. I am not talking about's the OP's hand-selected pieces but rather most of what I typically see for sale.

 

Happy New Year!

[jom]

According to the PCGS grading seminar the luster and strike of a coin affect the grade for a mint state coin about the same. About 10%-15% each based on this graph taken from the seminar.

 

jom

[coinman_23885]

According to the PCGS grading seminar the luster and strike of a coin affect the grade for a mint state coin about the same. About 10%-15% each based on this graph taken from the seminar.

 

jom

 

I don't doubt that this is what was said, but it doesn't reflect my observations. PCGS seems to care far more about luster and eye appeal than those numbers would suggest. They seem far more punitive on coins with mediocre luster than those with strike deficiencies. When a company also goes on record (through footnotes from its Photograde site) and indicate that superior eye appeal can bump up a coin's market grade by 2 points, it seems odd to see it only ranked as 10-15%. I own coins that I feel were bumped up 2 points for color, and there is no way that this is deserved IMO if eye appeal is so much less important than surface preservation (and I think the coins are exceedingly high end in the eye appeal department). Of course sample size could be an issue as well as observer bias, but I am curious whether others' observations will match mine.

[coinman_23885]

I don't think the OP's coin has enough luster to sticker at a 64. I also don't like the MS67 coin posted in this thread at that level with the abrasions and dip notwithstanding the mint frost/luster.

[Hard Times]

This is exactly the dialogue I was hoping for when I started this thread, I will wait to post the next one this evening as this continues on the first example. With respect to luster, you will have to take my word for it that my 77-cc in 64 has a nice cartwheel under the light because my images don't show it. With my images and how I shoot, luster is only apparent when the coin has a bursting, booming, flash. My 64 is not obviously overdipped and all luster completely removed - it would never had made 64 by NGC if it were so again you will have to take my work for it, but it just does not explode under the light. This is why I noted it in the initial description - nice luster, but not booming as the 67 above. Also note, when I image the same coin that has been imaged as True View by PCGS, they always have more of the luster showing and their images are always more 'silvery' as when compare my image of the 64 to the 67. I can bring out the luster and the 'silvery-ness' better using my t/s lens, but I am still working on perfecting technique. So I will describe the luster to you in each of the coins coming through this thread.

 

Again, TDN nailed it first, I think he is likely very correct that the non-explosive mint bloom was the key factor in keeping this 64 from a green bean.

 

Finally, this dime went through HA, so here is the link, note the slight differences in luster as imaged by them:

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1145&lotNo=9154

 

Best, HT

[brg5658]

This is exactly the dialogue I was hoping for when I started this thread, I will wait to post the next one this evening as this continues on the first example. With respect to luster, you will have to take my word for it that my 77-cc in 64 has a nice cartwheel under the light because my images don't show it. With my images and how I shoot, luster is only apparent when the coin has a bursting, booming, flash. My 64 is not obviously overdipped and all luster completely removed - it would never had made 64 by NGC if it were so again you will have to take my work for it, but it just does not explode under the light. This is why I noted it in the initial description - nice luster, but not booming as the 67 above. Also note, when I image the same coin that has been imaged as True View by PCGS, they always have more of the luster showing and their images are always more 'silvery' as when compare my image of the 64 to the 67. I can bring out the luster and the 'silvery-ness' better using my t/s lens, but I am still working on perfecting technique. So I will describe the luster to you in each of the coins coming through this thread.

 

Again, TDN nailed it first, I think he is likely very correct that the non-explosive mint bloom was the key factor in keeping this 64 from a green bean.

 

Finally, this dime went through HA, so here is the link, note the slight differences in luster as imaged by them:

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1145&lotNo=9154

 

Best, HT

 

Hi HT,

 

Can you just briefly describe what you see at 4:30 o'clock on the rim? It appears to be a deep hit sort of hidden by the 2nd prong there. Someone else mentioned it, but I wasn't sure how much could be seen in hand.

 

I agree, this thread and discussion have been very interesting!

 

Cheers,

-Brandon

[MarkFeld]

This is exactly the dialogue I was hoping for when I started this thread, I will wait to post the next one this evening as this continues on the first example. With respect to luster, you will have to take my word for it that my 77-cc in 64 has a nice cartwheel under the light because my images don't show it. With my images and how I shoot, luster is only apparent when the coin has a bursting, booming, flash. My 64 is not obviously overdipped and all luster completely removed - it would never had made 64 by NGC if it were so again you will have to take my work for it, but it just does not explode under the light. This is why I noted it in the initial description - nice luster, but not booming as the 67 above. Also note, when I image the same coin that has been imaged as True View by PCGS, they always have more of the luster showing and their images are always more 'silvery' as when compare my image of the 64 to the 67. I can bring out the luster and the 'silvery-ness' better using my t/s lens, but I am still working on perfecting technique. So I will describe the luster to you in each of the coins coming through this thread.

 

Again, TDN nailed it first, I think he is likely very correct that the non-explosive mint bloom was the key factor in keeping this 64 from a green bean.

 

Finally, this dime went through HA, so here is the link, note the slight differences in luster as imaged by them:

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1145&lotNo=9154

 

Best, HT

 

A 64 coin can have "non-explosive mint bloom" and still be a nice coin/worthy of a CAC sticker.

[Nutmeg Coin]

In my experience CAC does not put their seal of approval on coins with any issues. Originality counts for quite a bit, eye appeal, sharpness of strike, lack of cleaning, damage of any kind, a/t, etc.. They buy around the GS price if the coin gets the bean so they are left holding the bag if they make a mistake which is a pretty sizable responsibility.

[jpcienkus]

This is exactly the dialogue I was hoping for when I started this thread, I will wait to post the next one this evening as this continues on the first example. With respect to luster, you will have to take my word for it that my 77-cc in 64 has a nice cartwheel under the light because my images don't show it. With my images and how I shoot, luster is only apparent when the coin has a bursting, booming, flash. My 64 is not obviously overdipped and all luster completely removed - it would never had made 64 by NGC if it were so again you will have to take my work for it, but it just does not explode under the light. This is why I noted it in the initial description - nice luster, but not booming as the 67 above. Also note, when I image the same coin that has been imaged as True View by PCGS, they always have more of the luster showing and their images are always more 'silvery' as when compare my image of the 64 to the 67. I can bring out the luster and the 'silvery-ness' better using my t/s lens, but I am still working on perfecting technique. So I will describe the luster to you in each of the coins coming through this thread.

 

Again, TDN nailed it first, I think he is likely very correct that the non-explosive mint bloom was the key factor in keeping this 64 from a green bean.

 

Finally, this dime went through HA, so here is the link, note the slight differences in luster as imaged by them:

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1145&lotNo=9154

 

Best, HT

 

Hi HT,

 

Can you just briefly describe what you see at 4:30 o'clock on the rim? It appears to be a deep hit sort of hidden by the 2nd prong there. Someone else mentioned it, but I wasn't sure how much could be seen in hand.

 

I agree, this thread and discussion have been very interesting!

 

Cheers,

-Brandon

 

Brandon,

 

I went to the HA site and blew up the pics. It sure looks like a deep rim ding in the area you indicate. Also, there is another small one at 6.

 

Good thread and discussion. I'm glad it hasn't turned into a debate about the value of a CAC sticker.

 

Joe

[Kurtdog]

According to the PCGS grading seminar the luster and strike of a coin affect the grade for a mint state coin about the same. About 10%-15% each based on this graph taken from the seminar.

 

jom

That's a real impressive graph. I always wondered about how PCGS grades coins for its market. Thanks a lot.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

According to the PCGS grading seminar the luster and strike of a coin affect the grade for a mint state coin about the same. About 10%-15% each based on this graph taken from the seminar.

 

jom

That's a real impressive graph. I always wondered about how PCGS grades coins for its market. Thanks a lot.

 

I think it might be best that you continue to wonder, considering it is an opinion, and considering any number of graded coins that fail the percentage of the pie for the specific slice, in one way or another.

[messydesk]

I wonder if the pie chart represents what goes into a grade or if is a survey of what the "grade limiting" issue is. When I'm assessing a coin for purchase, I tend to weight the weakest of the four attributes higher than the others. If I reject a coin for possible purchase, it's because that attribute is a deal-breaker for me. Most often, that tends to be surface preservation.

[jom]

I wonder if the pie chart represents what goes into a grade or if is a survey of what the "grade limiting" issue is. When I'm assessing a coin for purchase, I tend to weight the weakest of the four attributes higher than the others. If I reject a coin for possible purchase, it's because that attribute is a deal-breaker for me. Most often, that tends to be surface preservation.

 

I really like hearing what others do when the evaluate a coin for purchase. To me it comes down to whether I LIKE the coin. This "like" also includes the PRICE not just whether I like the coin itself. What happened to the coin really doesn't matter to me...only its present state of preservation (or lack thereof).

 

As to attributes I favor color and luster over, say, strike or surfaces. Eye appeal means a great deal to me. But on surfaces I tend not to like hairlining but I might forgive it a bit if I like the color a lot. Funny thing about hairlines this is the one thing that keeps me from actually liking PROOF coins since they show of hairlining a lot more. I also don't care for PL coins since many of those have die polishing which, to me, "looks" like hairlines. Weird but there it is...

 

jom

[FishyOne]

... I will wait to post the next one this evening as this continues on the first example...

 

Best, HT

 

Please start another thread for the next coin. This one is starting to get a bit unwieldy.

 

We await your post with bated breath.

[brg5658]

HT, if you can, when you start the next thread, can you name it "FROM THE CAC GRADING ROOM -- PART 2" (or something of the sorts). These threads will be very handy in the future, and this will make the search mechanism work like a charm.

 

-Brandon

[Hard Times]

This is exactly the dialogue I was hoping for when I started this thread, I will wait to post the next one this evening as this continues on the first example. With respect to luster, you will have to take my word for it that my 77-cc in 64 has a nice cartwheel under the light because my images don't show it. With my images and how I shoot, luster is only apparent when the coin has a bursting, booming, flash. My 64 is not obviously overdipped and all luster completely removed - it would never had made 64 by NGC if it were so again you will have to take my work for it, but it just does not explode under the light. This is why I noted it in the initial description - nice luster, but not booming as the 67 above. Also note, when I image the same coin that has been imaged as True View by PCGS, they always have more of the luster showing and their images are always more 'silvery' as when compare my image of the 64 to the 67. I can bring out the luster and the 'silvery-ness' better using my t/s lens, but I am still working on perfecting technique. So I will describe the luster to you in each of the coins coming through this thread.

 

Again, TDN nailed it first, I think he is likely very correct that the non-explosive mint bloom was the key factor in keeping this 64 from a green bean.

 

Finally, this dime went through HA, so here is the link, note the slight differences in luster as imaged by them:

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1145&lotNo=9154

 

Best, HT

 

Hi HT,

 

Can you just briefly describe what you see at 4:30 o'clock on the rim? It appears to be a deep hit sort of hidden by the 2nd prong there. Someone else mentioned it, but I wasn't sure how much could be seen in hand.

 

I agree, this thread and discussion have been very interesting!

 

Cheers,

-Brandon

 

Yes there is a nick there, it may have come into play. JA on his site says hits in the devices and fields weigh more heavily than hits on the rim when he grades a coin. But no hit is always better than a hit.

 

Best, HT

[Hard Times]

This is exactly the dialogue I was hoping for when I started this thread, I will wait to post the next one this evening as this continues on the first example. With respect to luster, you will have to take my word for it that my 77-cc in 64 has a nice cartwheel under the light because my images don't show it. With my images and how I shoot, luster is only apparent when the coin has a bursting, booming, flash. My 64 is not obviously overdipped and all luster completely removed - it would never had made 64 by NGC if it were so again you will have to take my work for it, but it just does not explode under the light. This is why I noted it in the initial description - nice luster, but not booming as the 67 above. Also note, when I image the same coin that has been imaged as True View by PCGS, they always have more of the luster showing and their images are always more 'silvery' as when compare my image of the 64 to the 67. I can bring out the luster and the 'silvery-ness' better using my t/s lens, but I am still working on perfecting technique. So I will describe the luster to you in each of the coins coming through this thread.

 

Again, TDN nailed it first, I think he is likely very correct that the non-explosive mint bloom was the key factor in keeping this 64 from a green bean.

 

Finally, this dime went through HA, so here is the link, note the slight differences in luster as imaged by them:

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1145&lotNo=9154

 

Best, HT

 

A 64 coin can have "non-explosive mint bloom" and still be a nice coin/worthy of a CAC sticker.

 

That is why there may have been other factors as well. Like any grading decision, it is all of the different variables that come into play. There is also a small nick in the wreath on the upper right side. Device hits cost and the question is, how 'expensive' is a hit like that on a 64?

 

Best, HT

[TonerGuy]

According to the PCGS grading seminar the luster and strike of a coin affect the grade for a mint state coin about the same. About 10%-15% each based on this graph taken from the seminar.

 

jom

That's a real impressive graph. I always wondered about how PCGS grades coins for its market. Thanks a lot.

 

I dont think that is an accurate representation of how PCGS actually grades though. It may be what they "want" their grading to be but there's a lot of variation in the theoretical and actual.

[physics-fan3.14]

I dont think that is an accurate representation of how PCGS actually grades though. It may be what they "want" their grading to be but there's a lot of variation in the theoretical and actual.

 

This.

 

In my opinion, strike and luster should even be weighted more heavily, maybe more like 20% each? This is also why I like the star modifier for eye appeal, and then when grading I award less of a grade bump for fantastic eye appeal. I've seen 64 coins get a 66 grade based on their vivid toning, and that just seems excessive to me.